From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8bc34e14e4555720 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 12:13:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!feeder.qis.net!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: mjw@golux Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GRASP (was Re: This is a simple question) References: <9pk4t7$tbm$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <87zo762rta.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <9pkc0r$m5j$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9pkddm$afh$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9pvdp5$8im$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9pvk11$oke$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BC35E72.BB1C3188@worldnet.att.net> <3BC647EE.69B94B34@worldnet.att.net> From: Matthew Woodcraft Message-ID: <873d4oznfe.fsf@chiark.greenend.org.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 12 Oct 2001 20:08:21 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.107.104.73 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 1002913680 213.107.104.73 (Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:08:00 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:08:00 BST Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14430 Date: 2001-10-12T20:08:21+01:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > James Rogers writes: > > > This might have revealed a limitation of the process you used. I > > have found it both reasonable and helpful to document all changes in > > comments. Source code control systems may be able to identify many > > changes. They cannot identify the reasons for the changes. The > > changes should be a response to a documented requirement. [...] > I completely agree that you need to document the reasons for change, > in the VC log works for me. The concept of "documented requirement" > seems just slightly foreign to that of "volunteer open-source > project", though! I don't see why it should be. You'd have to let the volunteer developers write their own requirements, of course, but there's nothing to stop a project only accepting code if they do so. -M-